U.S. closes part of Arizona to Americans

This is a discussion on U.S. closes part of Arizona to Americans within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Hopyard
But the question is posed for the purpose of accomplishing a smear and implying an untruth, as with the hypothetical example ...

But the question is posed for the purpose of accomplishing a smear and implying an untruth, as with the hypothetical example I used for Harryball. A different audience than the one here at DC might take that question about Harryball as an indication that he in fact is suspected of just such activity. And some less astute folks here might too as well.

It may well be that the answer may be yes, but only after getting lobotomized. Or, it may well be that many who have not been lobotomized will still think the answer is yes. That's why the techniques is an effective propagandistic tool.

If people insist on being lead around by the nose, then yes, a leading question can lead the uncritical person to the conclusion that appears to be the questioner's conclusion. However, if the listner is a critical thinker, (s)he will ask the requisite questions to ascertain if the leading question is headed in the right direction or not.

I refuse to assume responsibility for the portion of the population that will be lead by the nose. I have paid my share to educate them, if they failed to take advantage of the system, then so be it.

Originally Posted by Hopyard

See above. Questions posed in particular ways and in certain circumstances are not mere invitations to additional research.

Ibid.

Originally Posted by Hopyard

The example given with regard to injunctive action against gang members explained things. Yes, in the example the statement was factually correct but also factually incorrect. It was factually correct in that it correctly stated that the city was keeping Texans our of an area of the city. It was factually incorrect in that it failed to tell the WHOLE story; that is, only those who are gang members with injunctions against them are being kept out. The point was that how a headline is framed influences how the reader understands the meaning. If an ordinary Texan reads "City keeps Texans out" they react with anger unless they know the famous, "rest of the story."

You are making my point here. The statement was, as you say factually correct. Does gathering more info help in understanding the context and scope of the exclusion - sure it does. Again, thinking people will gather these facts prior to coming to their conclusions.

Secondly, headlines (print) or teasers (broadcast) are designed to get the reader/listener to read/listen to the article/broadcast. They are not designed to tell the whole story - never have been. Even the journalist that comes up with the headline/teaser expects the reader/listener to dig deeper, generally with the info provided in the article/story, but they don't expect you to run with the headline.

Originally Posted by Hopyard

The USFWS posted advisories. But even if US Citizens were being kept out, that is only part of the story. The propagandist wishes for people to think that the US did something horrid, and ceded land to Mexico. The truth was something different entirely. The propagandist wanted the reader or listener to believe the event was current, when it was a 4 year old event.

You heard the headline/teaser and you, being a critical thinker dug deeper to make your own opinion. Good for you, that is what we are supposed to do. You came to a different opinion than the journalist, OK, that's fine. At least we can say the journalist got you thinking - which is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Your example statement, "Either the US is in fact keeping Americans out of part of Arizona or it is not," isn't a fully correct representation of the story.

I disagree. In the end, either the US did or did not keep Americans out of part of Arizona. There is no other answer, they either did or did not. As you point out (not quoted), there is more to the story, but it is a yes or no question in the end.

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Just look at the initial comments in this thread to see the danger in the way language was deliberately misused to convey something false, while appearing to be conveying something truthful.

So you find that a journalist had a spin on an article/story. That is not news! First of all, we all have our own perspectives, many of which are divergent. Secondly, most MSM articles/stories have a spin in one direction or the other and will use the facts that best support the pre-cooncieved notions of the journalist/editor. That is why we educate people to think for themselves and ask questions when people present facts to see if they hold up to the light of day. The fact that some people don't critically assess news stories and get led to erroneous conclusions is lamentable, but hardly shocking.

You guys who apparently live in Nerf world want to argue grammer and syntax, and all that other stuff I've forgotten, stop. This is about a problem that DOES exsist and needs to be corrected. No media outlet caused the problem,Mexicans did. Notice I didn't say mexico. I wouldn't care if these ******** came from Mars, what is happening is wrong and it shouldn't be aloud to continue. If advocating a violent cause of action somehow offends you I suggest that you don't read this thread.

Why do you want to blame the press? Why do you try to minimize the problem? You can't compare this to anything else than what it is, no fancy words here, It's a INVASION OF YOUR COUNTRY.

I am 100% in agreement with you that the border should be closed and criminal aliens sent home. Further, I like the Israli approach, a double fence with a mine field in the middle. That should stop the illegal traffic of drugs, people and terrorists.

How can anyone make sound decisions about what to do if we don't have the decently honest information about what actually has happened?

Easy - the border has been breached. Stop the presses and fix the problem. Close the border to illegal traffic of drugs, people and terrorists. We really don't need a lot of embellished stories to act. The bottom line is the border is breached and it is the government's responsibility to correct that problem.

This is not a slam on O only. God knows that this has been going on for quite some time and there is guilt on both Democrats and Republicans.

"A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

Hopyard,
I don't always agree with you, but I do respect your well written and generally well reasoned arguments. Perhaps I am looking at this in a semi simplistic and cynical way, but for me what it boils down to is this.
1) Is the refuge in question in Arizona?
2) Is it managed by a department of the United States federal government?
3) Did that department post signs saying a portion of that area is closed to U.S. citizens?
4) Is that closure because the administrators of that refuge are either unwilling or unable to provide for the safety and security of U.S. citizens in that part of the refuge?
5) Are the identified threats to safety of U.S. citizens in that area of Mexican origin?

We have two information sources on this, Fox news, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who administer the refuge. Fox news is a for profit operation that some say is hostile to the adminstration and may be spinning things to make the administration look bad. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service is a department of a government whose chief administrator has publicly declared his hostility to Fox. Each side is motivated to spin this their way to make the other side look bad. Why should we think either side is more credible than the other? Do we have any information from disinterested third parties that tends to support either sides version of things better than the other's?

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

re: mcp1810

Originally Posted by mcp1810

Hopyard,
I don't always agree with you, but I do respect your well written and generally well reasoned arguments. Perhaps I am looking at this in a semi simplistic and cynical way, but for me what it boils down to is this.
1) Is the refuge in question in Arizona?
2) Is it managed by a department of the United States federal government?
3) Did that department post signs saying a portion of that area is closed to U.S. citizens?
4) Is that closure because the administrators of that refuge are either unwilling or unable to provide for the safety and security of U.S. citizens in that part of the refuge?
5) Are the identified threats to safety of U.S. citizens in that area of Mexican origin?

We have two information sources on this, Fox news, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who administer the refuge. Fox news is a for profit operation that some say is hostile to the adminstration and may be spinning things to make the administration look bad. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service is a department of a government whose chief administrator has publicly declared his hostility to Fox. Each side is motivated to spin this their way to make the other side look bad. Why should we think either side is more credible than the other? Do we have any information from disinterested third parties that tends to support either sides version of things better than the other's?

See post #69 in this thread for information from a third party, not Fox and not Fish and Wildlife Service.

I thought that remark had been sent in my direction. But, you are welcome to share.

It was, but I share your view regarding propaganda in general, and this story specifically. Having spent time on the border (albeit a good while ago) working with JTF-6, being in law enforcement, following events on the border closely, and serving this country under arms for 20 years (and never having voted democrat, and being an ideological libertarian for the most part), I think it's good fun to be called out for not knowing what's going on, or for being some sort of Pelosi poster boy.

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

And I love someone who is (How many miles away in a foreign country) acting as if they have all the facts and logic to be able to support their misguided position.

Yes, I know, education and a broad range of life experiences make me MUCH less qualified to comment on world events.... Alas that I wasn't able to live my entire life in some parochial backwater where I could feel completely justified looking down my nose (or my Miller Hi-Life can) at anyone who had an opinion different from mine...

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

For ksholder--- think a little about this question, "Is gold still the best investment?"

(Folks, this isn't about gold and investing, it is about how language is used to lead and mislead.)

First, the very question leads the reader or listener to an assumption that at one time "gold was the best investment." This may be true, or false, or in between, but the question is leading the audience.

Second, the answer one might get will depend in part on who is being asked the question? Is it being asked by a naive new home buyer of his real-estate broker? Is it being asked of the naive young investor of his stock and bond broker? Is it being asked by a hawker on TV trying to make a market in gold for his own profit?

My contention here is that the way the question was posed with respect to US ceding land to Mexico, falls in the last of these three options. The work of the hawker trying to make a sale; in this instance push a partisan issue or perhaps merely a viewpoint on unlawful migrants. Still, it is undeniably a propagandistic technique which should immediately invite scrutiny.

ksholder wrote: "The fact that some people don't critically assess news stories and get led to erroneous conclusions is lamentable, but hardly shocking."

I never said I was shocked. And yes, these things are lamentable especially given the huge amount of money we pour into public education. But, that's for a different soap box.
__________________

Yes, I know, education and a broad range of life experiences make me MUCH less qualified to comment on world events.... Alas that I wasn't able to live my entire life in some parochial backwater where I could feel completely justified looking down my nose (or my Miller Hi-Life can) at anyone who had an opinion different from mine...

Funny Man. I hate to pop your stereotype bubble on me, but I don't drink. Are you the only one? The one who has had education and broad ranges of life experiences. Let me humbly bow in your presence.

Your not going to change my mind nor I yours. This has already gone further than I thought the mods would allow, so at this point I say, stay safe and come home someday. If there's something to come home to.

For ksholder--- think a little about this question, "Is gold still the best investment?"

Hopyard - I am not sure where you are headed. Yes the question above is worded with some assumptions as you pointed out. See my prior post for how to analytically think.

What I am not sure about is what you want done about what you obviously see as Fox News' pejorative comment. They made some statements with which you do not agree. You have made that clear here, but we cannot, even if we were so inclined, make changes at Fox News. Just what is it you are looking for: a retraction and correction by Fox News; a boycot of Fox News; the gov't to sensor Fox News; something else? I am just curious at this point what it is that you want.